9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case with the merits of the case against the main accused - appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-noticees, who had moved their case before Settlement Commission. The amount of duty and interest was also ordered to be recovered from the sum of Rs. one crore already lying deposited by M/s Ind-Swift Ltd. The two respondents in these appeals did not approach the Settlement Commission. Their cases were adjudicated and penalties were imposed on them by adjudicating authority. In appeals filed by them, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties on the ground that since immunity of penalty has been granted to the main accused by the assessee in the instant case, penalties under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules to the present respondents, who have preferred appeal, is also not warranted. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es on both of them under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties on both of the present respondents on the ground that the offence committed by them does not warrant penalties under Rule 25 and the main accused in the instant case has been granted immunity from penalties and prosecution. The last finding is based on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Shri S.K. Colombowala (supra). 8. As rightly pointed out by Ld. A.R., I find that the issue pertaining to waiver of penalty on the co-noticees, who do not approach the Settlement Commission and undergo the adjudication process has been decided by the judgment of this Tribunal in the difference of opinion case of Mamta Garg (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has considered the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Shri S.K. Colombowala (supra). 9. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi - 2013 (32) STR 410 (Tri.-Delhi) that wherever pursuant to a conflict opinion in a decision by a Division Bench, the conflict is referred to a Third Member of this Tribunal for resolution, the resultant judgment must be considered the judgment of a Full Bench, as if it were a judgment of a Larger Bench (three Ld. Members) sitting en banc. 10. In view of the above and by following the judgment in the case of Mamta Garg (supra), I hold that the appeals filed by present respondents can not be allowed on the ground that main accused got immunity from the Settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
